Trent Lott, A Racist Pig...Yes Or No???
- Thread starter KID ROCK1
- Start date
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,681
Hijack.
You're a doody.
You're a doody.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
He was
MISquoted
MISquoted
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,681
You're a doody toody.
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,681
You're a newbie doody.
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,681
You're a "do me" doody.
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
No more than Byrd, and ...
Gore, and Clinton. Gore's daddy was a big Klansman. What's more racist than keeping a segment of society in bondage by constantly enforcing their victim status? The 1968 gun control law was to prevent inner city blacks from arming themselves against abusive law enforcement. Every old timer from the South was once closely associated with the Klan lobbyists. Think about it.
Gore, and Clinton. Gore's daddy was a big Klansman. What's more racist than keeping a segment of society in bondage by constantly enforcing their victim status? The 1968 gun control law was to prevent inner city blacks from arming themselves against abusive law enforcement. Every old timer from the South was once closely associated with the Klan lobbyists. Think about it.
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
It worked on minorities......
Including the "Saturday Night Special" law that took affordable weapons for defense away from the finacially disadvantaged of our citizens.
From Worldnetdaily;
The Democratic Party takes the black vote in America for granted because blacks keep handing it to them without much introspection, without much thought, without using the political clout they have. Democratic Party officials are well aware of the fact that they have the black vote in their hip pocket and, thus, do not need to court it any more.
In fact, so arrogant has the Democratic Party become under the leadership of McAuliffe and, in effect, Bill Clinton – sometimes referred to incredibly as "the first black president" – that it insults black candidates and treats their constituencies like political plantation hands.
The Democratic Party leadership believes – and with some apparent justification – that blacks will stick with it if the party just keeps exploiting them with diversity rhetoric, the promotion of affirmative-action programs, various forcible wealth-transfer schemes and class-warfare talk about "tax cuts for the rich."
It's really quite shameful. It's really quite transparent. But with shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson receiving tribute from the party and its wealthy and powerful backers, the black populace continues to be deceived by these racist charlatans who pose as the friends of blacks, even while they have their charming liberal boot on the black man's neck.
The Democrats have successfully maintained their power base on the backs of black people. Without them, the Democrats would go the way of the Whigs. But the Democrats don't reward blacks in meaningful ways. They like to keep blacks in dependence. That's their strategy. We'll give you more goodies, they say, if you elect white boys with a "D" after their name.
But blacks are not going to get to the political promised land by taking handouts from arrogant white men – especially from the party that for so long apologized for slavery in the south. They're not going to get there by allowing one party to assume all their votes. They're not going to get there by investing all their political clout in one party without ever considering the return on that investment. And they're especially not going to get there by working exclusively with people who consider them inferior.
That's right. I said it. The Democrats' condescending, paternalistic attitude toward blacks betrays their racism. They remind me of the old stereotypical plantation owner who allowed certain slaves to come in the house, while keeping others out in the field.
Blacks have been a party to their own victimization because of the Democrats' monopoly grip on their votes. The Democrats have stood in the way of self-empowerment by blacks. They have stood in the schoolhouse door blocking better choices for education for blacks. They have persuaded too many blacks that they can't make it on their own and can only get somewhere through the largesse of the Democrats.
An observer of the Ohio 2nd District fiasco wrote : "It's very obvious here that the 'party of the black man' doesn't care about blacks or anyone else for that matter – only winning control of the people."
Including the "Saturday Night Special" law that took affordable weapons for defense away from the finacially disadvantaged of our citizens.
From Worldnetdaily;
The Democratic Party takes the black vote in America for granted because blacks keep handing it to them without much introspection, without much thought, without using the political clout they have. Democratic Party officials are well aware of the fact that they have the black vote in their hip pocket and, thus, do not need to court it any more.
In fact, so arrogant has the Democratic Party become under the leadership of McAuliffe and, in effect, Bill Clinton – sometimes referred to incredibly as "the first black president" – that it insults black candidates and treats their constituencies like political plantation hands.
The Democratic Party leadership believes – and with some apparent justification – that blacks will stick with it if the party just keeps exploiting them with diversity rhetoric, the promotion of affirmative-action programs, various forcible wealth-transfer schemes and class-warfare talk about "tax cuts for the rich."
It's really quite shameful. It's really quite transparent. But with shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson receiving tribute from the party and its wealthy and powerful backers, the black populace continues to be deceived by these racist charlatans who pose as the friends of blacks, even while they have their charming liberal boot on the black man's neck.
The Democrats have successfully maintained their power base on the backs of black people. Without them, the Democrats would go the way of the Whigs. But the Democrats don't reward blacks in meaningful ways. They like to keep blacks in dependence. That's their strategy. We'll give you more goodies, they say, if you elect white boys with a "D" after their name.
But blacks are not going to get to the political promised land by taking handouts from arrogant white men – especially from the party that for so long apologized for slavery in the south. They're not going to get there by allowing one party to assume all their votes. They're not going to get there by investing all their political clout in one party without ever considering the return on that investment. And they're especially not going to get there by working exclusively with people who consider them inferior.
That's right. I said it. The Democrats' condescending, paternalistic attitude toward blacks betrays their racism. They remind me of the old stereotypical plantation owner who allowed certain slaves to come in the house, while keeping others out in the field.
Blacks have been a party to their own victimization because of the Democrats' monopoly grip on their votes. The Democrats have stood in the way of self-empowerment by blacks. They have stood in the schoolhouse door blocking better choices for education for blacks. They have persuaded too many blacks that they can't make it on their own and can only get somewhere through the largesse of the Democrats.
An observer of the Ohio 2nd District fiasco wrote : "It's very obvious here that the 'party of the black man' doesn't care about blacks or anyone else for that matter – only winning control of the people."
G
Guest
Guest
bet the writer was a black republican dyke
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
Racist or not?...
In his book Saturday Night Special (1968) Robert Sherrill argued that the fear of armed blacks was the major provocation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. He argues that "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not only to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress didn't want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed this law, the 1st gun control law passed by Congress in 30 years, was one of the grand jokes of our time (p. 20)….Niggertown Saturday Night Special was term used by racists in the South to describe pot metal guns used by blacks for protection….In the past because of the South and its racist gun control laws, blacks were confined to the sub-rosa market of the inexpensive, dangerous, so-called Saturday Night Special to obtain protection. Today in many crime-ridden minority communities that need still exists….Attempts to ban handguns that are inexpensive (but safe) are directly aimed at minority gun ownership." (p. 21)
Many people feel that gun control is really race control. "People who embrace gun control are really racist in nature. All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people, mainly black people but the same laws used to control blacks are being used to disarm white people." ("Afro-Americans for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership," Leonard Whitley, 2000)
The legislature adopted a major new arms law for the first time prohibiting the open carrying of firearms in the cities.
The government tried to do warrantless searches of private residences for guns in Chicago housing projects in 1994. This is a reminder of how racism and gun control remain mixed up. These warrantless searches were finally blocked by a judge. After President Clinton's warrantless search party was struck down he finally explained his goals. "We're going to work with residents in high crime areas to permit searches that the constitution does allow in common areas, in vacant apartments, and in circumstances where residents are in immediate danger. We'll encourage more weapons frisks of suspicious persons." The "frisks of suspicious persons" is a long-standing tradition used against black Americans. Requiring housing projects tenants to give up their constitutional protections against warrantless searches is astounding. The government attempted to make tenants safe by unconstitutional means that the intentions were good even if the methods were wrong. The large majority of those arrested in housing projects were non-residents. It's amazing that the residents, who would have much to fear from these armed non-resident criminals, are the ones that the Clinton Administration seeks to disarm. To examine the Clinton Administration policies as response to crime, why disarm the likely victims of the criminals? If we consider these unexplainable policies as the latest symptom of racist attitudes about violence, then these policies make much more sense. The past motivations for disarming blacks are not so different from the motivations behind disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century the rhetoric to support such laws is that "they" (blacks) were too violent and untrustworthy to be allowed weapons.
With open racism unacceptable in American politics gun control still looks suspiciously concerned with race. The Crime Bill of 1994 passed after a fight in Congress was opposed by an unlikely coalition in the House, most republicans, some conservative democrats, and many black democrats. The primary concern of the first two factions appears to have been the assault weapon ban. The black democrats were concerned that the death penalty would affect blacks. The assault weapons ban reflected a widespread fear of armed inner city blacks. Most of the rhetoric was devoted to the dangers of these guns in the hands of gang members. Studies have found that assault weapons are seldomly misused criminally. Crime control was not the motivation for the assault weapon ban. A point to consider is that under the American legal system government discrimination is considered constitutionally suspect. These "suspect classifications" are subject to strong presumption of invalidity. These classifications are suspect because there's a long history of government discrimination and because laws based on these often impinge on fundamental rights.
Which side are you on?
In his book Saturday Night Special (1968) Robert Sherrill argued that the fear of armed blacks was the major provocation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. He argues that "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not only to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress didn't want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed this law, the 1st gun control law passed by Congress in 30 years, was one of the grand jokes of our time (p. 20)….Niggertown Saturday Night Special was term used by racists in the South to describe pot metal guns used by blacks for protection….In the past because of the South and its racist gun control laws, blacks were confined to the sub-rosa market of the inexpensive, dangerous, so-called Saturday Night Special to obtain protection. Today in many crime-ridden minority communities that need still exists….Attempts to ban handguns that are inexpensive (but safe) are directly aimed at minority gun ownership." (p. 21)
Many people feel that gun control is really race control. "People who embrace gun control are really racist in nature. All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people, mainly black people but the same laws used to control blacks are being used to disarm white people." ("Afro-Americans for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership," Leonard Whitley, 2000)
The legislature adopted a major new arms law for the first time prohibiting the open carrying of firearms in the cities.
The government tried to do warrantless searches of private residences for guns in Chicago housing projects in 1994. This is a reminder of how racism and gun control remain mixed up. These warrantless searches were finally blocked by a judge. After President Clinton's warrantless search party was struck down he finally explained his goals. "We're going to work with residents in high crime areas to permit searches that the constitution does allow in common areas, in vacant apartments, and in circumstances where residents are in immediate danger. We'll encourage more weapons frisks of suspicious persons." The "frisks of suspicious persons" is a long-standing tradition used against black Americans. Requiring housing projects tenants to give up their constitutional protections against warrantless searches is astounding. The government attempted to make tenants safe by unconstitutional means that the intentions were good even if the methods were wrong. The large majority of those arrested in housing projects were non-residents. It's amazing that the residents, who would have much to fear from these armed non-resident criminals, are the ones that the Clinton Administration seeks to disarm. To examine the Clinton Administration policies as response to crime, why disarm the likely victims of the criminals? If we consider these unexplainable policies as the latest symptom of racist attitudes about violence, then these policies make much more sense. The past motivations for disarming blacks are not so different from the motivations behind disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century the rhetoric to support such laws is that "they" (blacks) were too violent and untrustworthy to be allowed weapons.
With open racism unacceptable in American politics gun control still looks suspiciously concerned with race. The Crime Bill of 1994 passed after a fight in Congress was opposed by an unlikely coalition in the House, most republicans, some conservative democrats, and many black democrats. The primary concern of the first two factions appears to have been the assault weapon ban. The black democrats were concerned that the death penalty would affect blacks. The assault weapons ban reflected a widespread fear of armed inner city blacks. Most of the rhetoric was devoted to the dangers of these guns in the hands of gang members. Studies have found that assault weapons are seldomly misused criminally. Crime control was not the motivation for the assault weapon ban. A point to consider is that under the American legal system government discrimination is considered constitutionally suspect. These "suspect classifications" are subject to strong presumption of invalidity. These classifications are suspect because there's a long history of government discrimination and because laws based on these often impinge on fundamental rights.
Which side are you on?
Lott and DeLay are the scum of Congress. Give Katherine Harris a couple months and she'll be mentioned in the same sentence. Overall, segregation is more prevalent today than a generation ago, people that vote for bigots exacerbate the problem. Minorities migrated to large urban areas for a reason, they vote Democrat for the same reason. Lott has made similar comments and done many more sinister actions for years, it proves why Republicans want to localise all educational opportunities. It allows certain groups to keep their feet on necks and shift the blame to the guy on the ground.
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
What did he say? I threw out the Washington Post this morning after water dripped into the bag.
M
miles
Guest
70/30 said:
That could be the single most ignorant thing I've seen on Lit in two years.
You are an idiot.
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
70/30 said:
An article that I read in the Post three days ago said that segregation was a few % lower now (there's slightly less segregation) than there was in the last census.
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
LovetoGiveRoses said:
Don't ask me to cite the source, I used it for covering the floor while staining some furniture over the weekend.
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
70/30 said:
Lower compared to 1980 also. Just a little.
G
Guest
Guest
Trent Lott
Yes, he's a racist and he couldn't help but let it slip out. Most of them long term senators are racists and try to hide it.
Yes, he's a racist and he couldn't help but let it slip out. Most of them long term senators are racists and try to hide it.
